In a universe devoid of meaning... Why give a shit about the future of humanity? - Atheist Nexus2018-02-18T05:42:23Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/in-a-universe-devoid-of?groupUrl=existentialatheists&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI am all for understanding hu…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-11-06:2182797:Comment:17225482011-11-06T05:42:48.628ZJim Mo.http://atheistnexus.org/profile/James459
<p>I am all for understanding human evolution. I do wonder, however, if understanding that our brain/genes package has evolved to support the continuation of our genes is sufficiently a "meaning" to our life in the goal-less Universe. Yet, why should a "logical argument" for not caring for the future of humanity be more meaningful than a naturally evolved propensity to care for that future? </p>
<p>Existence before essence; we are what we are not only from our own personal choices but also from…</p>
<p>I am all for understanding human evolution. I do wonder, however, if understanding that our brain/genes package has evolved to support the continuation of our genes is sufficiently a "meaning" to our life in the goal-less Universe. Yet, why should a "logical argument" for not caring for the future of humanity be more meaningful than a naturally evolved propensity to care for that future? </p>
<p>Existence before essence; we are what we are not only from our own personal choices but also from choices of our ancestors and the selection processes of evolution on our species. Is there meaning in this...?</p>
<p> </p> I've been studying up on the…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-11-11:2182797:Comment:10260592010-11-11T17:52:44.612ZEdward Teachhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/edwardteach
I've been studying up on the morality stuff. Apparently, regardless of logic and rational thought, we are conditioned by our environment to such a degree that we experience "gut feelings" about such issues. The subjective experience seems to result in a sense that these "gut feels" come from some place outside of the self. Actually, they are simply schemas that are programmed into each individual.
I've been studying up on the morality stuff. Apparently, regardless of logic and rational thought, we are conditioned by our environment to such a degree that we experience "gut feelings" about such issues. The subjective experience seems to result in a sense that these "gut feels" come from some place outside of the self. Actually, they are simply schemas that are programmed into each individual. It makes me happy. It might b…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-11-11:2182797:Comment:10259262010-11-11T14:20:39.469ZRY Bhaskarahttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TLM
It makes me happy. It might be illusion, but so what? I don't want humanity to die sooner if I can help it. I want my gene to continue as long as possible. If that means what I do can scrap some time for humanity, by all means, go for it!
It makes me happy. It might be illusion, but so what? I don't want humanity to die sooner if I can help it. I want my gene to continue as long as possible. If that means what I do can scrap some time for humanity, by all means, go for it! We care about the future only…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-11-11:2182797:Comment:10259212010-11-11T13:58:45.321ZEdward Teachhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/edwardteach
We care about the future only in as much as it makes us feel good in the now... Trippin!
We care about the future only in as much as it makes us feel good in the now... Trippin! Well said!tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-10-19:2182797:Comment:10075082010-10-19T19:41:22.045ZEdward Teachhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/edwardteach
Well said!
Well said! There is plenty of intellectu…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-07-17:2182797:Comment:9128192010-07-17T15:27:12.211ZJay A Smallhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JayASmall
There is plenty of intellectualism to be had about the purpose of Humanity, or lack of it. But the more useful questions (in the way religion makes <i>their</i> failed attempt) speak to how individual humans, you and me, assign our own life's meaning. Religion is an immediate impulse once an animal is able to think and recognize patterns. There are patterns from every vantage in the Universe. One may (even logically) insist that "My own existence <i>must</i> be part of a larger pattern." Even…
There is plenty of intellectualism to be had about the purpose of Humanity, or lack of it. But the more useful questions (in the way religion makes <i>their</i> failed attempt) speak to how individual humans, you and me, assign our own life's meaning. Religion is an immediate impulse once an animal is able to think and recognize patterns. There are patterns from every vantage in the Universe. One may (even logically) insist that "My own existence <i>must</i> be part of a larger pattern." Even we atheists can acknowledge the deductive emotion behind this, no? But in the absence of evidence to confirm this impulse, humanity has simply resolved to invent its meaning...in religion. Far worse to go without a meaning than to go with one not factually grounded. With ignorance, all things are possible.<br />
<br />
But what for those of us who have displaced ignorance, and discovered the religiously conceived "pattern" in fact no longer meets the criterion of pattern-ness? The fissures of facts and fiction sends us looking elsewhere. Isn't that how athiests are born? We're still looking to place ourselves in a pattern rather than chaos. I think this is why many professonal scientists equate the emotion religious ecstasy with that found in studying science. There is so much patternization to the universe to behold, accessed fully and richly through systematic observation, be it natural or human social history.<br />
<br />
<br />
As to our own personal meaning, it's a blank canvas. And that scares most of us. After recently reading Robert…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-05-01:2182797:Comment:8109352010-05-01T18:52:09.489ZJim Mo.http://atheistnexus.org/profile/James459
After recently reading Robert Wrights' book "The Moral Animal", I find my cynicism and understanding of the absurd are reinforced.<br />
<br />
I see there is general agreement on the propagation of genes. I think that those who consciously avoid procreation are taking advantage of their unconscious drive to procreate ("recreational" sex): The frontal cortex is teasing the primitive brain areas by not letting the primitive brain get what it wants.<br />
<br />
One other aspect that Wright discusses is the social…
After recently reading Robert Wrights' book "The Moral Animal", I find my cynicism and understanding of the absurd are reinforced.<br />
<br />
I see there is general agreement on the propagation of genes. I think that those who consciously avoid procreation are taking advantage of their unconscious drive to procreate ("recreational" sex): The frontal cortex is teasing the primitive brain areas by not letting the primitive brain get what it wants.<br />
<br />
One other aspect that Wright discusses is the social environment in which our species evolved. There are many who find that procreation of your genes is an absurd reason for living. I think many more of us find social climbing to be even more absurd reason. Yet Wright suggests that our genes are also programmed to have us try to increase and maintain a higher status within our social environments. I interpret this as another survival mechanism when it is coupled with our evolved tendency to give preferential treatment to those of higher status. (How many of you would behave the same way at the bar if you were with Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris as you do with your regular agnostic drinking buddies?)<br />
<br />
I speculate that our seeming drive to improve humanity originates in more than one place. First, there is the evolved social nature of our species. We generally need each other for survival. Theoretically, we also take care of our next of kin because they share genetic material with us and thus merit our assistance.<br />
<br />
Bring industrialization into the picture. In that last 200 years, the social structures of our civilization have changed. For many, status within an extended family group is no longer any advantage. Status in artificial organizations is often more advantageous. But there is still that drive to do good to those among whom we live. Wright suggests that we also have evolved altruism as a survival mechanism. The Tit-for-Tat strategy of social exchange has proven itself successful. When I do good to a stranger living in my environment, I increase the chances that that stranger will not do me and my gene factories harm.<br />
<br />
It is possible that by sacrificing some resources to the needs of strangers in a friendly way is adaptive in forming peaceful alliances which can be called upon to withstand aggressors. I think most would agree that peace between neighbors improves chances for survival. Wright suggests that this may be a rationale for social support programs: when needs are met in the community overall, there is less motivation toward aggression and "crime".<br />
<br />
So... are we again fooling ourselves when we spend time and resources improving humanity 1) thinking the recipients will some day return the favor or 2) trying to reduce the tendency toward inter-tribal conflict or 3) looking to increase our status in certain circles... or 4) do it because the gods told us to. Man... That was beautiful. I…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-03-09:2182797:Comment:7520482010-03-09T03:07:05.360ZGarrick McElroyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/GarrickMcElroy
Man... That was beautiful. I almost cried.
Man... That was beautiful. I almost cried. I have cited this all over th…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-02-12:2182797:Comment:7232072010-02-12T20:01:02.727ZHoward S. Dunnhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/HowardSDunn
I have cited this all over the place - but 70,000 years ago there were 2,000 humans world-wide. We didn't survive by being selfish back then - no way. And, here in modernity, our principles have many railing against the very notion we could be responsible for the extinction of a species through our actions to the extent that we create laws protecting endangered species.<br />
<br />
Blue whales - pre-whaling - numbered 275,000 - down to 2,000 in the early sixties and now up to 5,000. Still, a very sad…
I have cited this all over the place - but 70,000 years ago there were 2,000 humans world-wide. We didn't survive by being selfish back then - no way. And, here in modernity, our principles have many railing against the very notion we could be responsible for the extinction of a species through our actions to the extent that we create laws protecting endangered species.<br />
<br />
Blue whales - pre-whaling - numbered 275,000 - down to 2,000 in the early sixties and now up to 5,000. Still, a very sad statistic - but evidence of an extraspecies sensibility. My dad once told me - 'Having…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-02-09:2182797:Comment:7181212010-02-09T03:40:22.522ZHoward S. Dunnhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/HowardSDunn
My dad once told me - '<i>Having kids lets you know you are mortal, having grandkids lets you know you are immortal.</i>'
My dad once told me - '<i>Having kids lets you know you are mortal, having grandkids lets you know you are immortal.</i>'